| Obviously a brilliant legal mind at work here. What're they going to be detained for? Future crimes? Present crimes? Are there any we've missed here? |
 A Sindh High Court bench on Wednesday observed that no person could be detained for his past crimes and the authority warranting detention of a person must possess evidence that the future acts of the person, whose detention had been ordered, could be detrimental to law and security of the country.
| So I can murder Maudette with an ax and steal all her jewelry, and tomorrow I can't be detained, because the act is in the past? Good deal. I could use some nifty jewelry... |
The bench comprising Justice Ata-ur-Rehman and Justice Zia Perwez was hearing the petition challenging the detention of Dr Akmal Waheed and his younger brother Dr Arshad Waheed under the Anti Terrorism Act (ATA). The doctor brothers, facing charges of harbouring terrorists before an Anti Terrorism Court, were granted bail by the Sindh High Court on December 2, 2004. The same day provincial government issued order of their detention under section 11-EEE of the ATA for one-month and extended it for further one month on expiry. The bench further observed that the condition of representation before government in Article 10 of the Constitution was not automatic, the detaining authority must mention in its order to detainee that he had an opportunity to make representation before the government against the detention order. The bench asked the petitioners' counsel M Ilyas Khan to argue on the next date about the possible impacts of not availing remedy of representation before government on the petition.
| I thought it was the Chinese who were supposed to be "inscrutable"? |
|